Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › mp3 quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

mp3 quality - Page 6

post #76 of 138
8/23/07 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post
I "DID" read it before and "USED" to believe in loseless until I found the truth behind between loseless and full source with my own ears and my rig. If you try playing loseless file with program that can show bitrate while playing, you'll see why. Maybe our audio listening level is different. I used to be a person who can't tell different between 192 and 320kbps mp3 but now mp3 isn't enough for music I want to listen to. Take your time.
Yes, maybe "my audio listening level is different", and not have 5000$ audio rig (i prefer to eat everyday or wear clean shoes), but you could have a brain problem. You just cant talk about something you dont understand.

Bitrate means data/time, its a compressed format so it CAN´T have 1440kbps, you dont need any programme to show bitrate, because gonna be slower. Its all about mathematics there is not data lost, just with algorithms and cpu decoding power, you take back ALL original data.

Stop talking about something you dont understand, and about you can advice the difference, and about your PLACEBO effect.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #77 of 138
8/23/07 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillmetoo View Post
It is very important what encoder (with what algorythm) you use.
Agreed. That was my implied point by mentioning LAME, as well.

By extension, the options you use are important, too. My MainConcept A/V encoder does a decent job at MP3 encoding with the right options for the files being converted, for example.

- wader
Reply
post #78 of 138
8/23/07 at 6:17pm
My understanding of Lossless is this (I may be totally wrong so don't quote me haha)

A sound wave is a vibration. A vibration is a movement that has a center which you can call the "resting place". A sound wave looks like this:



The vibration is "vibrating" around that center straight line. It is scientific fact that any sound made vibrates equally distant both north and south of the resting position. Meaning if something vibrates at exactly A 440 (440 vibrations per second), then there will be, without variation a wave that both peaks and dips symetrically around the resting place.

Now a wave file copies the vibration exactly (all the peaks and dips).....

The gift about sound though and compressing sound is that you can use only half the represented vibration and have a program read it back to you by playing both the parts of the vibration above the resting place and mirroring it exactly to play what's below the resting place. This concept is exactly like those paintings you did when you were a child and your teach had you paint on one half of the paper and then fold the paper in half and press to have a symmetrical painting!

Therefore you will not hear any differences between flac or alac and a wav file. You may think you hear a difference, but it would be scientifically impossible unless the flac file is corrupt or your reader is working improperly.
Reply
post #79 of 138
8/23/07 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule View Post
Okay, it seems now that the OP is asking about the quality of a sound file that nobody sane here has heard of, and in retrospect is wondering if the quality of the no-name sound file will affect how high he will get from the sound waves of those so-said files.

Dear God, that was a long run-on sentence of sorts!
Well I consider myself almost sane and have heard of the i-doser, there is a thread here on it somewhere...

I have also tried the program and it did not work

I only tried it with the "Cannabis tunes", because that is the only drug I have tried (besides alkohol).

I think the problem in the i-doser is not that it does not work, but you do not have the opportunity to listen to music or watch TV or even be out enjoying nature, in other words instead of altered senses and enjoying them, you are fokusing an listening to sounds...

Ohh and BTW I use 320 kbs, I can hear a very very very small difference from lossless but it is so tiny that I do not want to spend space or battery on it..

Another analogy for OP is digital fotos, if you take the raw picture and shrink it and then resize the shrinked file the foto becomes very blurry...there simply is not enough information in the file...
Reply
post #80 of 138
8/23/07 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claus-DK View Post
Another analogy for OP is digital fotos, if you take the raw picture and shrink it and then resize the shrinked file the foto becomes very blurry...there simply is not enough information in the file...
Brilliant analogy!
Reply
post #81 of 138
8/23/07 at 10:49pm
So it means the source must have good enough decoder to make flac sounds like wav. It's different for me in rockboxed iMod but not for PC thourgh dac.
Reply
post #82 of 138
8/23/07 at 11:51pm


I would say that's pretty darn close to a CD quality file. Of course it rolls off a bit thanks to the original file and the fact that there's likely not as much sound at 17-20KHz as, say, anywhere else on the spectrum. And also that CD quality isn't either 100% perfect.

But, sorry, 45MB per song is not happening. 320 kbps MP3 is more than close enough to me.

For lossless vs. WAV I have no idea. I bet if I listened to a billion dollar setup and a five grand headphone I might.
Reply
post #83 of 138
8/23/07 at 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazwsx View Post
For lossless vs. WAV I have no idea. I bet if I listened to a billion dollar setup and a five grand headphone I might.
LOSSLESS, the word says it all...
Reply
post #84 of 138
8/24/07 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazwsx View Post
. . .
For lossless vs. WAV I have no idea. I bet if I listened to a billion dollar setup and a five grand headphone I might.
You might . . . buy more audiophile equipment?

- wader
Reply
post #85 of 138
8/24/07 at 1:15am
Here is a thread that may help you out. I started it to find out what settings determine the best sounding mp3 (encoding with lame 3.97) and still have a somewhat space-saving file.

http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audi...3-quality.html

If you don't want to waste time reading the thread, then here is my advice: use exact audio copy to rip your cd's and use the built in encoding option (point it to lame 3.97 final) and use this command line without the quotations "-m j -V 0 -q 0 --vbr-new"

I would HIGHLY recommend reading the thread though, I know it helped me learn about the subject of mp3 quality. I started out with one method of obtaining mp3's of decent quality and by the end of it all I had a completely new method of going about it.
Reply
post #86 of 138
8/25/07 at 9:53am
Well....here is one of my MP3's for all you non-believers:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/6i9zup

Enjoy!

For the record - I have played these MP3's for many headfiers at meets and they all believe they are listening to lossless.
Reply
post #87 of 138
8/25/07 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post
I "DID" read it before and "USED" to believe in loseless until I found the truth behind between loseless and full source with my own ears and my rig. If you try playing loseless file with program that can show bitrate while playing, you'll see why.
Lossless is decoded to uncompressed PCM audio before being played. Unless your decoder is broken, and regardless of the bitrate that is sent to the decoder, the PCM data sent to your DAC is 1411kbps, bit-perfect identical to the original .wav file.
Reply
post #88 of 138
8/25/07 at 11:16am
Read my earlier post, I found no difference in foobar2000 through grace m902's usb dac but little difference in Rockboxed iMod Photo G4. So It's Rockbox to be blamed with.
Reply
post #89 of 138
8/25/07 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post
Well....here is one of my MP3's for all you non-believers:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/6i9zup

Enjoy!

For the record - I have played these MP3's for many headfiers at meets and they all believe they are listening to lossless.
Details is comparable to loseless but still muddled as it's mp3. If I use this on portable rig like normal iPod with some earphones, I may not notice but but not for sure in home rig. Actually, there isn't much instruments needded for this sound anyway.
Reply
post #90 of 138
8/25/07 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post
Read my earlier post, I found no difference in foobar2000 through grace m902's usb dac but little difference in Rockboxed iMod Photo G4. So It's Rockbox to be blamed with.
And if so--and I've said this before--that means that Rockbox's decoder is broken. But that is irrelevant to your other assertion, which is the one that I was responding to: you claimed that one can tell that lossless is different from .wav by looking at the bitrate displayed in playback software. That statement is wrong. It doesn't matter what the bitrate of the encoded lossless file is prior to decoding. When decoded, the data from a lossless file is bit-for-bit identical to the original file.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › mp3 quality